Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Singh Etc on 6 October, 2012
State Vs. Ram Singh Etc
IN THE COURT OF MS AANCHAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 8
(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
In the matter of:
State
Vs.
Ram Singh
FIR NO.42/95
P.S. Rajender Nagar
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 503/2/12
2. Date of institution : 06.05.1995
3. Name of the complainant : Ramesh Chand
s/o Ram Kishan
4. Date of commission of offence : 20.02.1995
5. Name of accused :1) Ram Singh @Azad
s/o Alexender
2) Anil Sharma @Motu
s/o Hira lal
3) Jasbir Singh @ Jassi
s/o Rajender Singh
4) Rajender Singh
s/o Dalip Singh
6. Offence complained of :365/506/457/353/332/186/34
IPC & 380/511/34 IPC
7. Plea of guilt : Accused pleaded not
guilty
8. Date of reserving the Judgment : 31-07-2012
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of such Judgment : 06-10-2012
Facts leading to registration of case:
Complainant Ramesh Chand made the complaint (ExPW2/A) that he is running the Jewelery Shop in the name of "Darshan Jewelers" at 3/72, Page 1of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc Old Rajender Nagar, Shanker Road and on 20.02.95 at around 5.30 AM, as he reached in front of his shop during morning walk, he saw three boys(one fair complexioned Sikh about 5'6" tall, medium weight, second boy aged around 20 years about 5 feet tall fair complexioned and round face and third around 20-22 years healthy built fair complexioned about 5 ½ feet tall), who had broken the locks of his shop and half of the shutter of shop opened. He raised alarm due to which HC Inder Pal Singh (whose name is revealed to him later) patrolling there, challenged them. Leaving the rods that three boys were carrying in their hands, they started to flee in one white Ambassador car bearing plate of No. DDA-4865. HC tried to stop them, Sikh and Shorter boy pulled him inside car and healthy built drove towards upper ridge road. The complainant informed the situation to Ct. Ramesh and both got one car stopped and followed to upper ridge road the complainant informed the situation to Ct. Ramesh and both got one car stopped and followed to upper ridge road and got Ambassador stopped where driver of Ambassador car whose name was revealed as Anil Sharma was apprehended. Two co-accused ran towards forest leaving HC Inder Pal and despite efforts made by HC Inderpal they could not be apprehended. Meanwhile, the car in which Ambassador car was followed moved away and its number could not be noted. IO SI Inder Singh reached there and rukka was prepared on the basis of which FIR(ExPW1/A) registered.
Police Investigation On 20.02.95, accused Anil Sharma was arrested and searched (memo ExPW2/C), site plan(ExPW9/A) was prepared, three rods(ExP1, P2 & Page 2of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc P3) and two locks broken and car were bearing plate no. DDA-4865 seized vide seizure memo (ExPW3/D) and (ExPW2/B) respectively. Accused Anil Sharma was interrogated and his disclosure statement (ExPW2/F) is recorded.
On 21.02.95, accused Ram Singh and Jasbir Singh were arrested at Gym at Patel Nagar and searched vide memo (ExPW8/A & ExPW8/B). Their disclosure statements are recorded. The three accused pointed at the spot vide memo(ExPW7/A).
The two accused Anil Sharma and Ram Singh disclosed that they had committed theft of Ambassador Car No. HNL-5946 from Patel Nagar and they pointed out the spot of theft of Ambassador Car vide ExPW7/A dated 20.02.95 & ExPW7/D dated 21.07.95.
Accused Anil Sharma, Jasbir & Ram Singh disclosed to have committed theft at Mansarover Garden and Ram Singh selling the silver & gold at Karol Bagh and pointed out at the spot vide (ExPW7/B) dated 20.02.95, (ExPW7/F) dated 21.02.95. Accused Ram Singh got the silver and gold articles recorded and same were seized vide (ExPW5/A).
The accused Anil Sharma, Jasbir and Ram Singh also disclosed to have committed theft at Baba Farid Puri and pointed out at the spot vide memo (ExPW7/C) dated 20.02.95, (ExPW7/H) & (ExPW7/E) dated 23.02.95 respectively.
Accused Jasbir also got recovered silver and gold articles and same Page 3of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc were seized vide seizure memo (ExPW3/A).
Finally charge sheet was filed against three accused namely Anil Sharma, Ram Singh and Jasbir.
On 21.04.95, accused Rajender surrendered before the court. He made the disclosure statement (ExPW10/D) and pointed out the spot from where theft of ambassador was made vide (ExPW10/A). He also pointed out the shop at Baba Farid Puri vide (ExPW10/B) dated 06.08.03 and after completion of investigation supplementary charge- sheet is filed.
Court Proceedings (1)After receipt of charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet, the court took the cognizance and the charge u/s 457/380/511/365/506/353/332/186/34 is framed against each accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2) For proving its case, the prosecution produced 12 witnesses.
(a) PW1 ASI Mansa Ram was Duty Officer and he recorded FIR 42/95 (ExPW1/A) in his hand writing.
(b) PW2 Ramesh Chand deposed that on 20.02.95 at about 5.45 AM, he saw 2-3 persons standing outside his shop located at 3/72, Rajinder Nagar running in the name and Page 4of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc style of Darshan Jewelers and found the locks of the same broken and shutter opened. He raised alarm and two accused persons tried to followed and chased the Ambassador Car parked at the distance from the chowk. He told the matter to the police and HC Inderpal who was coming from the other side with Ct. Ramesh Chand went to inquire from these boys but he was caught hold by these persons from inside the car and car started running he raised the alarm. Some crowd gathered and unknown persons gave lift in the car and he followed and chased Ambassador car. His Car driver got stopped the Ambassador near Shanker Road, Chambery, two accused persons escaped from there and accused Anil Kumar (who was present in the court) was taken out from the car. He was driving car bearing no. DDA-4865. HC Inder pal caught hold of him. He got recorded his statements(ExPW2/A) white Ambassador car was taken into possession vide memo (ExPW2/B) and accused Anil Kumar was arrested, personally searched vide memo (ExPW2/C). Rods recovered from the shop were (ExP1 & ExP2) and recovered from car was (ExP3). All three rods recovered were seized vide seizure memo((ExPW2/D). Accused Azad and Jassi were arrested in his presence. He also deposed that nothing was stolen from the shop only locks and shuttered were opened.
(c) PW3 Mahesh deposed that SI Inder Singh along with accused Jasbir @ Jassi and Ram Singh came to his shop at Page 5of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc 675, Baba Faridpuri, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi on 23.02.95 at about 10.00 AM. Accused persons took him to Tilak Nagar at the address of Jassi @ Jasbir where silver article were recovered which were seized vide (ExPW3/A) and those articles were stolen from his shop and the articles produced in the court found after openings the seal were ExPW1(Colly).
(d) PW4 Ct. Ravinder was the DD writer who deposed that HC Inderpal and Ct. Ramesh departed at about 4.55 on 20.02.1995.
(e) PW5 Kewal Raj deposed that on 19.02.95, accused Ram Singh came to his shop located at Gali No.37, Bidan Pura, New Delhi and pledged silver worth Rs.14000/-. On 23.02.95 police came at his shop and on inquiry, these silver articles were handed over by him to the police, total weight of the silver was 2.953 Kg and the same was seized vide seizure memo ExPW5/A.
(f) PW6 Ramesh Chand deposed that on 20.02.95 at about 5.45 AM while patrolling he along with HC Inderpal heard some voice coming from Dak Khana. They reached there and found one shop No. 3/72Darshan Jewelers was half opened and locks were broken and one persons was shouting Chor-Chor. 3-4 young persons tried to escaped from the spot taking were Ambassador bearing No. DDA-4865 parked nearby. HC Inderpal tried to stop them.
Page 6of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc One Sardar dragged him inside the car and the vehicle was taken to Ridge Road. He and complainant requested one person coming in car and chased the Ambassador car and on reaching Ridge Road Chamber, the ambassador car was stopped and two persons including Sardar ran away and one was apprehended. IO SI Inder Singh came there and left Inderpal at the spot with accused Anil Sharma and himself went to search rest of the accused. But all in vain. Statement of the complainant was recorded. Thereafter, Ct. Virender was sent to PS for registration of case. They came at Darshan Jewelers and the photographs were taken. Disclosure statement of accused were recorded. Ct. Virender returned at the spot along with copy of FIR and rukka. Accused Anil Kumar Sharma was driving the car and Jasbir Singh, Sikh person was the present who dragged this witness did not identify third accused.
(g) PW7 Virender Singh deposed that on 20.02.95 he along with HC Inderpal and accused Anil Sharma reached in between the H.No. 5/6, West Patel Nagar and accused Anil Sharma disclosed that he along with Ram Singh and Rajender had stolen white Ambassador No. HNI 5946 and along with Ram Singh, Jasbir, Lalit and Rajinder had stolen some jewelery of gold silver articles from Mansarovar Garden. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and he affirms the suggestion that accused Ram Singh and Jasbir were taken to Mansarovar Garden and,Main Road, West Patel Nagar. He also affirmed that the supplementary Page 7of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc statement u/s 161 CrPC Mark A and Mark B made by him and pointed out memo of accused Jasbir are EXPW7/D, and ExPW7/H.
(h) PW8 HC Inder Pal deposed that on 20.02.1995 at about 5.45 am, Ct. Ramesh and he heard the noise "Chor-Chor' and on going towards 3/72, Old Rajinder Nagar, he found one Ambassador Car no. DDA-4865 and one person sitting inside the vehicle and two persons running towards the vehicle and one towards Patel Nagar side. He tried to shop the vehicle. One Sardar pulled him inside the vehicle. His half body was inside the vehicle and half was outside at driver side. He was beaten by accused Ram Singh, Anil and Sikh namely Jasbir @ Jassi. Anil told him to leave the vehicle or he would be killed. Meanwhile, vehicle reached at Shanker Road, Chambeary and one Maruti Car coming from behind, caused the Ambassador to be stopped as it struck against foot path. Ram Singh and Jasbir ran away and Anil was apprehended. He was handed over to Ct. Ramesh and Complainant who reached there in Maruti and he chased the other accused but all in vain. SI Inder Singh and Ct. Virender reached at spot. Statement of complainant is recorded, accused persons were searched. Thereafter, they came back at 3/72, Old Rajender Nagar. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Virender for registration of case at 3/72, Old Rajender Nagar i.e shop, shutter was half opened and locks were broken. Broken locks were taken into possession vide memo ExPW3/D. Car was taken into Page 8of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc possession vide memo ExPW2/B. On pointing out of Anil pointing at memo ExPW7/A, ExPW7/B was prepared. Accused Anil was arrested and personally searched vide memo ExPW2/C. On 21.02.95, accused Ram Singh and Jasbir were arrested and on their pointing out memo ExPW7/D and ExPW7/G were prepared. On 23.02.95, he along with SI Inder Singh and accused Jasbir and Ram Singh went to Baba Faridpuri and then to the house of Jasbir Singh and on his pointing out on 3rd floor, Silver Pajebs weighting 2.2777 Kg in total identified by Mahesh were taken into possession vide memo ExPW3/A and sealed with seal of BRS. Then at the instance of Ram Singh, they went to Karol Bagh where Kamal Raj produced silver ornaments total weighting 2.953 Grams which were seized vide memo ExPW5/A. IO recorded statement of witnesses. Thereafter, reaching at PS, property was deposited with MHCM. Accused were produced before Court and remanded to JC. IO recorded his statement. This witness identified silver ornaments.
(i) PW9 Retired SI Inder Singh was IO of the case.
(j) PW10 Ct. Rajesh Kumar deposed that accused Rajender accompanied them at the place where the pointing out memos Ex PW10/A, PW 10/B and PW10/C were prepared and he made the disclosure statement Ex. PW10/D.
(k) PW11 Ct. Mohar Singh was MHCM of P.S. Rajinder Nagar Page 9of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc and he proved entries made in register NO. 19.
(l) PW12 Sh. S.B.S. Tyagi DCP deposed that after going through the file placed before him, he gave complaint/sanction u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex PW12/A. (3)During PE, accused Ram Singh absented himself and he was declared PO vide order dated 24.07.01 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
(4)Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused except Ram Singh(Who was declared PO) did not lead DE despite opportunity given.
(5) Arguments are heard and record is perused carefully.
(6)PW2 Ramesh Chand deposed that he saw 2-3 persons standing outside the shop at 3/72, Old Rajender Nagar, Delhi from the distance of about 25 yards at about 5.45 AM on 20.02.95. In his cross examination, he admits that it was dark at that time. On the contrary Ct. Ramesh Chand PW6 deposed that it was morning and 3-4 young persons tried to escape from the spot while taking the car. He denied the suggestion that there was darkness or there was no sunlight or there was no provision of light. PW8 HC Inder Pal did not depose whether it was the time before sunrise. Offence u/s 457 IPC is said to be committed when lurking house trespass or house breaking is done at night. It requires two necessary ingredients- (i) the entrance must be effected (2) it must be committed before sun rise and after sun set.
Page 10of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc There is no consonance in the depositions of witnesses as to presence of sun-light at the time of offence. The depositions of witnesses also leave no doubt that entrance was not affected. Neither it is proved that entrance in the shop was effected nor it is proved that it was the time when sun was set, therefore, the offence under section 457 IPC can be called to have been committed.
(7)PW2 was examined on 20-09-1996 and all the four accused were present into the Court on that day. This witness says that 2/3 persons were standing near his shop. He did not specify who were the 2/3 persons out of those four accused present into the Court on that day. This witness did not depose to have seen accused Jasbir or Rajender or Ram Singh present on the spot. He did not even depose that any of these three accused was arrested on his identification. PW6 deposed that 3-4 persons tried to escape in car. PW8 deposed in his examination in chief that one person was sitting inside the vehicle and one was running towards Patel Nagar side and two were running towards vehicle. PW8 or PW9 did not depose that any of these three accused was arrested even on the identification of PW8. Contrary to the prosecution version that the accused Azad and Jassi were arrested from Gymnasium in the presence of complainant, the complainant deposed that accused Azad and Jassi were arrested in school and he saw these accused first time in School. IO himself could not state the name of Gym. There is no corroboration by the witnesses as to the number of persons involved in the offence. Fairness in the procedure of arrest of accused Jasbir and Ram Singh is also doubtful. There is no explanation why the test identification Parade of accused Jasbir, Ram Singh and Rajender was not conducted when PW6 could able to Page 11of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc identify them being not the participant of proceedings of arrest of these accused persons. Therefore, identification of accused Jasbir, Rajender and Ram Singh is not proved.
(8)PW2 deposed that locks of the shop were broken and shutter was opened and he also admitted that nothing was stolen from his shop. PW6 said he saw shop half opened and locks broken. PW8 did not depose to have seen the condition of shop and its lock at that time. This witness deposed that after searching for other accused, he along with complainant etc returned at 3/72 Old Rajender Nagar where shutter was half opened and locks were broken and these broken locks were taken into possession. The broken locks were not produced before PW Ramesh Chand complainant and these locks were not identified by him as his own. This witness does not depose even about the make of the locks. Similarly, broken locks were not produced to be identified by PW6 Ct. Ramesh Chand and PW8 HC Inder Pal. Two locks are produced before PW9 Inder Singh, IO of the case. Contrary to the versions of eye witnesses, one lock was found in broken condition but other was found in opened condition. The keys of the locks which are alleged to be broken from the shop of the complainant, have not been seized from the possession of complainant PW2 to establish the link between the locks produced in the Court and locks broken. There is no evidence on record to connect the produced locks with the shutters of the shop.
(9)PW6, PW8 and PW9 specifically deposed that photographs of the shop were taken. But neither photographs nor negatives are placed on record nor was photographer cited as witness to produce the same Page 12of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc before the Court.
(10)PW9 IO of the case deposed that he reached at the shop after getting the FIR registered and completing the proceedings at Shanker Road, Chambary and after searching for the accused persons at Budha Garden, Railway Colony, Dhaula Khuan and he found that half of the shutter of the shop broken. PW2 Complainant stated that shop is looked after by his son and landlord. Thus, it makes it improbable that the site of the offence could be preserved intact after such a long time when none of the police person was left at the shop/spot of offence.
(11)PW6 and PW8 did not depose that any rod was found at/near the shop or any of the rod was recovered. PW9 did not specify the number of rods recovered from spot. The complainant deposed that the rod Ex P3 was recovered from the car at the police station from its dicky. Under such circumstances seizure of rods is not free of doubts.
(12)PW2, PW6 and PW8 have deposed that HC Inder Pal was kidnapped in Ambassador no. DDA-4865 and this car was seized. PW2 described the manner in which Ct. Inder Pal was kidnapped disclosing that neck of Ct. Inder Pal was inside the car and other body was outside the car. This manner of kidnapping of HC Inder Pal was not disclosed in first statement made by the complainant to the police which is ExPW2/A. Contrary to this deposition made by PW 2 in Court, it is written in PW2/A that short boy and sardar pulled HC Inder Pal inside the car whereas stout boy drove the car. PW6 Ramesh Chand deposed in his examination in chief on 13.12.01 that HC Inder Pal was dragged inside the Car. This witness did not identify the third accused present into the Page 13of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc Court and stated Sardar pulled HC Inder pal inside the car. HC Inder Pal deposed on 26.07.2002 that he was pulled inside the car and half of his body was inside the car and half was outside the vehicle at driver side. This witness also states that the statement of complainant regarding pulling him inside the car was wrong. These depositions affirm that there has been exaggeration to that extent that it has caused a total shift in the manner of kidnapping. These exaggerations and improvements have made the testimonies of the witnesses unreliable unless it finds corroboration in material facts. As per the prosecution case this car was stolen from Patel Nagar. There is no FIR on record to show the commission of offence of theft against this Ambassador Car. Neither any police official from PS Patel Nagar has been cited as witness to depose this fact nor any of the record reflecting the theft against the vehicle seized is produced in Court. False number plate used is not produced in the Court at all. Despite the seizure of this Car, the car was not produced into the Court at any point of time. Opinion as to the likelihood of kidnapping in the manner of kidnapping disclosed by PW2 and PW8 can be formed if the seized car in original is produced before the court. The width of window, height of the car and breadth of the door of car at driver side etc. are the relevant parameters which are likely to effect the opinion of the Court about the probability of manner of kidnapping. PW2 stated in his cross examination that he does not know that HC Inder Pal was dragged by the Car and HC Inder Pal was nervous and there was neither any visible injury on his body nor his cloth were torn at any place. It is deposed by PW8 that it took about 7-8 minutes to reach at Shanker Road Chambery before the car was stopped. PW8 also deposed that he was beaten by the accused persons by fist and blows. Assuming the these facts, this court is of the Page 14of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc view that the car must have travelled the distance of about 3-4 km before it is stopped and the person caused to be lifted in such manner would receive injury one or the other and at least, he would offer himself for medical examination, but there is evidence on record that PW8 was even medically examined. In such circumstances, bare oral testimonies full of contradictions, exaggerations and improvements corroborated with nothing are not reliable.
(13)The testimony of PW4 Mahesh is not disclosing any fact in respect of the facts of the present case in hand. The present trial is not pertaining to the theft committed at shop no. 675, Baba Farid Puri, West Patel Nagar, Delhi or any of the property involved in that theft. Otherwise, there is not even any trace of the particulars of case in judicial record. No original FIR or any of the documents of the case registered in respect of these offences from the concerned Police Station or from concerned Court have been called. No witness to prove any of the report of the commission of offence in the shop of PW3 Mahesh is produced or cited as witnesses. Even otherwise, this witness deposed that on 20-02-1995, one Anil from PS Rajender Nagar has visited his shop and seen the FIR and accused Ram Singh and Jasbir were brought on his shop on 23-02 -1995. In such circumstances, it has been highly suspicious that the factum of theft or any offence at the shop of PW3 is discovered to the Police at P.S. Rajender Nagar on the disclosure statement made by accused Ram Singh or Jasbir within the meaning of S-27 of Indian Evidence Act. The articles are also stated by the witnesses to be seized and the memos prepared at P.S. The witness has been unable to show any document to show himself as the owner of the property seized. Articles are also not bearing the seal of Page 15of 16 State Vs. Ram Singh Etc the witness. No receipt of purchase of these articles or its duplicate is produced. No independent person was called at the time of affecting the recovery of the articles. PW7 Ct Virender Singh could not answer the time, place, and location of house or of room from where the articles are alleged to be recovered. Similarly, PW 8 and PW9 could not answer the material particulars for recovery. PW3 deposed that the seal with which articles were seized is till date in his possession on the contrary PW9 IO deposes that PW3 returned the seal o the very same day in the evening.
(14) PW9 deposed that he recorded statement PW2/A and rukka and sent Ct Virender for registration of case and copy of FIR and original rukka was brought by him but Ct Virender does not depose about the receiving of rukka and tehrir or getting the case registered or handing over the copy of FIR or rukka to PW9. This witness was also not cross- examined on this point. Therefore, the chain of facts lost one of the important link.
(15) In view of above facts and circumstances, this Court is of opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, therefore, the accused Anil Sharma @ Motu s/o Hira lal, Jasbir Singh @ Jassi s/o Rajender Singh, Rajender Singh s/o Dalip Singh are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 365/506/457/353/332/186/34IPC&380/511/34IPC.
Announced in the open court (Aanchal)
today 06.10.12 MM-08 (Central)/Delhi
06.10.12
Page 16of 16
State Vs. Ram Singh Etc
Page 17of 16
State Vs. Ram Singh Etc
State
Vs.
Ram Singh
FIR NO.42/95
P.S. Rajender Nagar
06.10.12
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused present in person except accused Ram Singh who is already PO Vide separate judgment of even date, the accused Anil Sharma @ Motu s/o Hira lal, Jasbir Singh @ Jassi s/o Rajender Singh, Rajender Singh s/o Dalip Singh are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 365/506/457/353/332/186/34 IPC & 380/511/34 IPC.
B/B S/B stand discharged after the expiry of six months in compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Aanchal) MM-08 (Central)/Delhi 06.10.2012 Page 18of 16